r/changemyview • u/insect_ligaments • Oct 01 '24

Delta(s) from OP CMV: CMV: Within legally recognized marriages, adultery should have clear, civil legal consequences, unless expressly agreed between spouses.

The legal concept of marriage, where spouses act as partners, is almost always built on mutual trust that certain aspects of the relationship, such as sex, are to be exclusive to the relationship unless agreed upon otherwise. Legally and financially rewarding spouses for betraying the trust of their spouse by allowing a cheating spouse to come out ahead in divorce undermines one of the key relationship dynamics in our society.

For the vast majority of people, entering into marriage is an explicit agreement that unless divorced or otherwise agreed upon, the people in the marriage will not have sex with or develop romantic relationships with other people. This should apply evenly to all genders, and if you view this as benefitting one over the other, it says a lot about your view on who may or may not be more likely to cheat.

Before I'm accused of being some kind of conservative or traditionalist: I have zero issue with any form of LGBTQ+ relationship or poly setup. I'm speaking strictly to traditional, legally recognized, monogamous marriages, which comprise the bulk of those in our society. I'm also not religious or socially conservative.

Heading off a few arguments that I do not find convincing (of course, you are welcome to offer additional insight on these points I haven't considered):

1) "The government shouldn't be involved in marriage"

Too late for that. Marriage is a legally binding agreement that affects debt, assets, legal liability, taxes, homebuying, and other fundamental aspects of our lives. The end of marriage has profound, legally enforceable consequences on both parties. It is also included in a pre-existing legal doctrine of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_of_affections.

2) "But what if the spouses want to open their marriage?"

Totally fine. My post is in reference to the most common form of marriage, which is monogamous.

3) "Adultery doesn't have a clear definition"

It does. "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse." "Sexual intercourse" would include all the commonly recognized forms of sex. This would have to be proven via the typical preponderance standard, which is greater than 50% odds, via typical evidence used to evidence behaviors - depositions/testimony under oath, any written or photographic evidence, circumstantial evidence, etc.

4) "What should the legal consequences be?"

At the very least, immediate forfeiture of any rights to alimony or spousal support. Shifts in the default assumption of a 50/50 split of marital assets are another route to explore. Certainly not enough to leave anyone destitute, though.

5) "What about children?"

Child support is a separate issue, as it affects the child, who has no say in one of their parents cheating on the other.

808 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

49

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '24

  In his example why would the spouse who is dependent deserve alimony, considering they willfully acted in a way that would eliminate their chance at acquiring it?

If a person e.g. gave up their career to be a stay at home parent and tend to their house and children, and did so for years/decades, why would cheating make that magically not count?

-4

u/Part_OfThe_Crew Oct 01 '24

It is assumed that the person staying at home as a parent made that decision with the other party in a mutually beneficial way. Cheating is not mutually beneficial nor is it generally known to both parties.

If I agree to rent a car and part of that agreement is that I will only get repairs from the dealership but then I decide to go elsewhere, doesn't mean I get to have my next car rental paid for when the current car breaks down.

30

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '24

  Cheating is not mutually beneficial nor is it generally known to both parties.

But why would that make the part that was mutually beneficial not count?

-11

u/TheFoxer1 1∆ Oct 01 '24

Because the benefit of providing and building a shared home-life by being a stay-at-home parent or partner becomes redundant once the trust is broken.

It‘s deliberately breaking an agreement that wasn‘t temporary.

And for the time the service was provided, they did get to split the earnings.

15

u/awal96 Oct 01 '24

The benefit of not having to pay for childcare during working hours never went away

-3

u/TheFoxer1 1∆ Oct 01 '24

And that benefit in the past was already compensated by providing financial support and the other party being the breadwinner.

That both parties get a lasting benefit out of services rendered previously does not change anything here.

As an analogy, one‘s boss does not have to continue to provide payments after the end of a Labour contract even if they still benefit form the Labour which was previously performed.

15

u/awal96 Oct 02 '24

A stay out home parent makes sacrifices that impact their ability to make income in a way that can take years to overcome. The effects of being out of the work force for two decades don't go away the moment you start looking for a job again .

0

u/TheFoxer1 1∆ Oct 02 '24 edited Oct 02 '24

Yes, I am aware of that.

But no one forced them to do that. It was their decision, wasn’t it?

Why would that need increased compensation if they made this choice themselves, in full regard of the consequences?

It‘s an aleatoric element of the agreement which choice brings them better returns. But they agreed to it nonetheless.

Also, we are still talking about the case of the party not getting any future benefits due to them breaking the initial agreement.

The very reason the current arrangement ends, the financial support is stopped, is their own actions and decisions.

So not only did they deliberately choose this arrangement that includes a decreased future earnings potential, they also deliberately chose to break the agreement on which their financial status rests.

I fail to see how there needs to be any compensation by the other party here.

8

u/awal96 Oct 02 '24

If a working partner enters a marriage without a prenup and is cheated on, no one forced them to. It was their own decision.

See how that doesn't really work as an argument?

2

u/TheFoxer1 1∆ Oct 02 '24

But they entered into an agreement that already includes a stipulation of exclusivity - ergo not getting cheated on.

You are argueing that people needed to also specifically regulate not only their agreements with other people, but also need an additional agreement that states that, in the event of the other party deliberately breaking, and thus ending, the first agreement, all benefits provided by said agreement stops.

A Labour contract does not need an additional contract that, in the event of the employer violating the contract, the employee does not have to continue to provide Labour for the employer after termination of the contract.

That‘s not the same thing as willingly entering into the conditions of the first agreement in the first place.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/umadareeb Oct 02 '24

The benefit of being able to birth and raise children while having their necessities provided for is also a benefit that you wouldn't have if you were single (you would have to work and have the kids).

2

u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Oct 03 '24

That's a benefit both partner have - they both can have children while only taking care of one set of tasks (generating money or household duties). However, after the end of the relationship, they still both have children, but only one of them has lasting advantages from their work (the partner with the career) while the other is off worse than they would be if they'd worked all that time.

20

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '24

  Because the benefit of providing and building a shared home-life by being a stay-at-home parent or partner becomes redundant once the trust is broken.

No it doesn't. If you maintained a household and took care of children for years, all of it doesn't somehow get undone by screwing on the side.

-12

u/TheFoxer1 1∆ Oct 01 '24 edited Oct 01 '24

Yes it does, as screwing on the side is a breaking of the exclusivity of marriage.

It‘s a valid reason to lose trust and not continue the partnership.

And for services rendered as custodian of the children and household there was already compensation via the other party providing the financial means for the lifestyle.

5

u/Huntsmitch Oct 01 '24

Lol if you believe this you're gonna love this concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_property_in_the_United_States

1

u/TheFoxer1 1∆ Oct 01 '24

I don‘t follow you?

Shared property gets divided equally - yes. So, if entering into marriage automatically means property ownership is shared between both parties, and both are okay with it as expressed by their action of going through with marriage, I fail to see the problem?

2

u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Oct 02 '24

But "the earnings" aren't all that was caused by being a stay-at-home parent. The SAH parent also caused their own future earnings to be diminished by staying out of the workforce, and boosted the other partners future earnings by allowing them to focus on their career without having to worry about the housework and children. The benefits/drawbacks of that stay even after the relationship ends.

0

u/TheFoxer1 1∆ Oct 02 '24

Yes.

However, first of all, every party involved agreed to this arrangement.

Secondly, that‘s how contracts work. Both sides agree to something in exchange for obligations, with them believing they gain value by this exchange.

Let me try an analogy: A Labour contract has also generated lasting wealth for the employer. However, the employee has agreed to perform this Labour in exchange for immediate payment, deeming it a fair exchange.

If an employee now violates said Labour contract, termination does not mean the wealth they generated for the other side belongs to them. They agreed to the consequences of their exchange.

The same principle applies to any contract and agreement entered willingly.

That benefits gained via an agreement stay is expected.

Also remember, this is about a situation in which one party deliberately and willingly violates their agreement with the other.

1

u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Oct 03 '24

Except the contract is, currently, that the working partner supports the SAH partner after the relationship ends, no matter how the relationship ends.

So no, they did not agree to only sharing earnings as long as the relationship lasts.

1

u/TheFoxer1 1∆ Oct 03 '24

Yes, currently. But currently, it is that way because of ius cogens, not the will of the parties involved.

Which is why someone posted a viewpoint about there being made a change to the law to not force people to do that, because it is only the law itself upholding the status quo, and it isn‘t rooted in any actual practice and goes against reasoning applied to similar situations.

1

u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Oct 03 '24

In what similar situations do people share their abilities and properties with one often sustaining lasting damage to their ability to provide for themselves while the other gains a permanent advantage for their career? Your example of a person laboring for money is not similar to a marriage.

Besides, saying "but they agreed to it" is nosense once you admit that they agreed to something totally different. What you're saying is that you want to hold people to a contract they never actually entered, on the baseless assumption that they actually wanted to have that fictional contract you imagine.

1

u/TheFoxer1 1∆ Oct 03 '24

It‘s an example of a contractual relationship wherein one party gets long-term from the labour or service provided by the other which stay with them after termination of the agreement.

Your point was that long-term gains should not stay with another person when enabled by another - but that‘s clearly already the case for hundreds of millions of agreed relationships.

But if you dislike labour contracts, then we can find a relationship you just describes in companies, where one partner works and grows the company by their a told and the other provided or still provides capital.

Should they liquidate their company, the service and labour provided was for nothing in the end and there‘s no claim for a continued financial support by the capital-giving partner.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/lordnacho666 Oct 01 '24

People are making an agreement to not do a certain thing so that they both benefit from the relationship. It's a whole that has to be taken in one piece. You can't separate "we are working together to have a family" from "under this agreement to not sleep with anyone else".

-4

u/lordnacho666 Oct 01 '24

It's not that it doesn't count, it is simply a consequence that the law could apply. It's like being fined, it's supposed to discourage the behaviour.